Parrish v. Zook
3:16-cv-00817
E.D. Va.May 31, 2017Background
- Petitioner Quinten D. Parrish, a Virginia state prisoner, was convicted in Suffolk Circuit Court of first-degree murder, use of a firearm in the commission of a felony, and possession of a firearm by a felon; sentenced to life plus 10 years.
- Virginia Court of Appeals dismissed his direct appeal on October 25, 2000; his conviction became final on November 24, 2000 when time to seek further review expired.
- Parrish filed a state habeas petition on November 27, 2000; the Circuit Court dismissed it on December 4, 2001 (tolling the federal limitation for that period).
- Years later Parrish filed state motions to vacate (2012 and 2014); the 2014 motion was denied and an appeal to the Virginia Supreme Court was dismissed in June 2015.
- Parrish filed the federal § 2254 petition on September 1, 2016, asserting (1) his guilty plea was involuntary because an agreement was not disclosed and (2) the trial judge lacked authority to permit the commonwealth to nolle prosequi charges after sentencing.
- Respondent moved to dismiss based on AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations; the court granted dismissal and denied a certificate of appealability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parrish’s § 2254 petition is timely under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) | Parrish argues his petition is timely because he filed within one year of state courts addressing his later Motions to Vacate | Respondent argues AEDPA’s one-year period expired in 2002 and Parrish’s 2016 filing is untimely | Court: Petition is time-barred; limitations ran after state habeas dismissal in 2001 and Parrish filed too late |
| Whether Parrish is entitled to statutory or other delayed commencement under § 2244(d)(1)(B)-(D) | Parrish suggests later state proceedings revived or tolled the limitation | Respondent: No statutory basis; factual predicates/new rights not shown | Court: No basis for delayed commencement; claims do not fit (B)-(D) |
| Whether Parrish is entitled to equitable tolling | Parrish cites lack of counsel, lack of access to transcripts, and alleged jurisdictional defect | Respondent: These circumstances are not extraordinary and petitioner lacked diligence | Court: Equitable tolling denied; petitioner failed to show diligence and extraordinary circumstances |
| Whether claims attacking a void judgment (jurisdictional defects) evade AEDPA limitations | Parrish contends void-judgment claims can be raised anytime | Respondent: AEDPA bars untimely § 2254 claims, including some jurisdictional challenges | Court: Rejected Parrish’s argument; void-judgment theory does not exempt § 2254 petitions from AEDPA’s limitations |
Key Cases Cited
- Holland v. Florida, 560 U.S. 631 (2010) (equitable tolling requires diligence and extraordinary circumstance)
- Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408 (2005) (statutory tolling while properly filed state postconviction is pending)
- Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701 (4th Cir. 2002) (AEDPA limitation begins when direct review is complete or time for seeking it expires)
- Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner mailbox rule for filing dates)
- Valverde v. Stinson, 224 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2000) (equitable tolling requires causal link between extraordinary circumstance and late filing)